Special Meeting - Number of Days Notice.

[George Mervosh]

RONR states:

" b ) when authorized by the assembly itself, as part of formal disciplinary procedures, for purposes of conducting a trial and determining punishment (see footnote, p. 661)” RONR (11th ed), p. 92

The XYZ society's bylaws also authorize special meetings and require 10 days notice be given for the meeting.

If XYZ's assembly authorizes a special meeting in accordance with the rule in RONR, are they bound by the 10 day notice requirement mentioned in their bylaws?

If XYZ's bylaws didn't authorize special meetings, is a "reasonable number of days" required if they call a special meeting under the above rule in RONR? Is notice even required?

[David A Foulkes]

If XYZ's assembly authorizes a special meeting in accordance with the rule in RONR, are they bound by the 10 day notice requirement mentioned in their bylaws?

My inclination is to say yes.

If XYZ's bylaws didn't authorize special meetings, is a "reasonable number of days" required if they call a special meeting under the above rule in RONR? Is notice even required?

My inclination is to say yes to both.

WWRES?

[George Mervosh]

You certainly need to give notice of a trial to the accused, but if this rule is born out of pp. 634-635 in the 10th, a trial could have been held at an adjourned meeting, or if that isn't possible, RONR said to hold a special meeting. I'm not sure notice is needed to the other members, though it is needed to the accused. It seems to me the assembly can set the date under the rule in RONR with no additional notice to anyone other than the accused.

[Rev Ed]

RONR states:

" b ) when authorized by the assembly itself, as part of formal disciplinary procedures, for purposes of conducting a trial and determining punishment (see footnote, p. 661)” RONR (11th ed), p. 92

The XYZ society's bylaws also authorize special meetings and require 10 days notice be given for the meeting.

If XYZ's assembly authorizes a special meeting in accordance with the rule in RONR, are they bound by the 10 day notice requirement mentioned in their bylaws?

Yes. The By-laws supercede RONR, so any notice period found in the By-laws for any special meeting would require 10 days notice.

If XYZ's bylaws didn't authorize special meetings, is a "reasonable number of days" required if they call a special meeting under the above rule in RONR? Is notice even required?

Yes. Members must be given an opportunity to attend the meeting or else quorom would not be met. Also, the accused is allowed to attend and provide a defence, which is not possible if notice is not provided and a time is not allowed available to prepare.

[Dan Honemann]

George, as you have noted, the 10^th Edition, on page 635, provided that, if a regular meeting is scheduled to be held before the date desired for trial in disciplinary proceedings, the first resolution preferring charges should be to establish a special meeting for conducting the trial instead of an adjourned meeting. However, in view of RONR’s general prohibition against the holding of special meetings unless provided for in the bylaws, there was room for doubt as to whether or not the assembly could do such a thing if the bylaws did not contain any provision at all authorizing the calling of special meetings, or even if they did, if the assembly itself was not authorized to call one. The 11^th Edition endeavors to remove any such doubt by specifically authorizing the assembly to do so for this particular purpose (conducting a trial and determining a punishment). No other change is intended.

On page 91, lines 31-34, RONR provides, with respect to special meeting generally, that “Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance.” I think that this applies to any special meeting, including one called by the assembly based solely upon the authority granted to it by RONR.

[George Mervosh]

I really appreciate the clarification, Dan.